Related articles and links |  1 of 5

That the kingdom may flourish
* Miriam Adeney's editorial on the dangers of short-term mission projects was fantastic. She concisely dissected the critical issues and handled them in a fair and open manner. Too often churches and sending agencies are divided over the issue of short-termers vs. career missionaries. If the guidelines Adeney suggests are followed, I believe many of these problems can be overcome.

I grew up on the mission field and am currently preparing for career missions in Eastern Europe. I have learned from experience that education of volunteers is the key. Those who are untrained become a stumbling block to the indigenous church and a burden to the missionary. Often, especially in "popular" countries such as Russia and Kenya, the resident missionary becomes a tour guide for the volunteers. This is a waste of time and valuable human resources. On the other hand, groups that are well trained and clearly understand their goals and limitations can be highly effective. It is apparent from current trends that volunteer mission efforts will continue to grow in popularity. My prayer is that Adeney's advice will be heeded and the kingdom will flourish.

Kyle Kirkpatrick
Baton Rouge, La.

* I found Adeney's editorial short-sighted. The writer assumes the missions pie, in dollar terms, is only so large. Is this in fact true? The writer also assumes that "North America" is some sacred sending unit that cannot be disturbed by others in its role as "preeminent sender" of long-term missionaries. Could the "mantle" have moved to another nation or region? Is God stuck using North Americans? Does any organization, academic institution, or missions agency have a selfish interest in maintaining the supposed North American dominance in sending missionaries?

A big part of the failure of the long-term missions establishment to enlist new missionaries includes, but is not limited to: (1) a remarkable lack of understanding the times, (2) post-W.W. II white male leadership lost in the "Marshall Plan" mentality of missions, (3) the American obsession with "church growth," (4) the insistence on the "faith mission" approach to funding missions organizations, (5) theological paradigm paralysis, and (6) pastoral leadership devoid of any real interest beyond the doors of their own churches.

In the end, it's really not about McMissions, it's about McChristianity in North America! Old wineskins do not hold new wine well, if at all.

Marty Melvin
Ventura, Calif.

Adeney is right on target. Our son and family are career missionaries and have had some wonderful experiences and assistance through short-term volunteers. Others come totally unprepared, with a pre-set agenda that has no connection with the culture. The worst offenders are some of the splinter "mission" groups headed by individuals with the hit-and-run evangelistic mentality. Many come with the mindset that the career people are ineffective, and they are going to "really do missions."

Let's keep the volunteer program going and evaluate its aims against the nine questions posed at the end of the editorial.

Clifford J. Ellison
Richmond, Va.

While much of the article dealt with the serious concerns that should be a part of any Christian institution's foray into short-term ministry, what proved discouraging was the underlying notion that an upsurge in short-term extension ministry strength means a downturn in career missions. I do not see a strong correlation between these two realities.

Adeney, a well-regarded missions expert, missed some obvious reasons for short-term ministry progress with the advances in travel, communications and relational networks, closer resource and financial scrutiny, the rise in spiritual gift understanding and deployment locally, nationally, and internationally. She left out the increase in cross-cultural ministry partnership and networks through innovations in technology often facilitating short-term mission interchange around the particular skill or project. Speaking to the plummeting numbers of career missionaries, she omitted the outdated communication patterns of many mission agencies that have done little to reach future and therefore younger ministry practitioners and mission funders, or the poor examples of benevolent but careless practices and attitudes that have resulted in oppressive ministry structures.

next page... |  1 of 5

January 6 1997, Vol. 41, No. 1